Am i entitled to refund on school trip

DVardysShadow

arcon5 wrote: »

] .... Saying that I don't see how they can justify keeping 100% off the money unless there truly are mitigating circumstances preventing them from supplying the service. For example, if the pupil was subjected to a ban by the airline. Although this is not the case.

I can't see them getting away with keeping more than £15 admin for a fairly serious offence which does not necessitate taking the pupil off the trip. But the exapmple of the ailine banning the pupil is useful as the clearest case of it being justifiable not to refund. Even there, the school would have a duty to mitigate losses and return any recoverable money.

DVardysShadow

Proc wrote: »

Six pages of bickering about bottles of vodka, court-hearings, puppy-selling and pension schemes yet nobody is any the wiser to the actual question posed by OP.

I think before this can sensibly continue we need to know:

1) What did OP's daughter do?
2) What does it state in the contract / terms?

Once we know 1], the debate has been such that the answer will be obvious. And we know now that for 2] any contract clauses will be largely irrelevant because under certain limited circumstances a school could exclude a pupil regardless of contract - but if they exclude a pupil outside those limited circumstances, relying on contract, the contract terms are likely to be unfair.

arcon5

DVardysShadow wrote: »

I can't see them getting away with keeping more than £15 admin for a fairly serious offence which does not necessitate taking the pupil off the trip. But the exapmple of the ailine banning the pupil is useful as the clearest case of it being justifiable not to refund. Even there, the school would have a duty to mitigate losses and return any recoverable money.

For me, it would really depend on what the child has done and when the trip is. If they have paid for a room for example which is non-refundable then depending on the first question they could have a case to cover this. Although I can't really think of much a child could have done to justify this.
If they threatened another pupil with a sharp object then perhaps this could be sufficient grounds (although not likely this is the case) in order to protect the interests of other parties involved.

Although I suspect this really comes down to the way the child has behaved verbally with teachers (a wild guess I know) or with other pupils. In which case (depending on what they said) I cannot really see it being sufficient grounds to retain all monies and not supplying the service.

This whole situation is very dicey, but overall unless there truly are some mitigating circumstances I would have to agree with you that they don't really have much of a case to deduct much here.